From February 12, 2016 to 10:30 on February 12, 2016, the Defendant, as an employee of the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, has been engaged in food delivery and food fee collection.

around 16:00 on February 12, 2016, the Defendant embezzled total of KRW 2,01,000 for seven times in total, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Form, by the following method until March 17, 2016, when the Defendant was in the course of performing his/her duties and stored for the victim KRW 170,000 for food that he/she received by delivering food on that day and received.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Each statement in G, D, H, I, J, and K Preparation;

1. Application of the receipt statute

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of embezzlement against the grave J) of the Criminal Act aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one month to 15 years; and

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines [Determination of each type of crime] There is no type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (no person subject to each special sentencing] (the scope of each recommendation] basic area, four months to one year and four months [the scope of the final sentence due to the increase of multiple offenses], four months to two years and ten days.

3. In light of the period, frequency, etc. of the instant crime, which is disadvantageous to the determination of sentence, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the following: (a) the victims, other than D, who had been punished several times due to the same type of crime as the instant crime, did not reach an agreement with the victims; and (b) the occurrence of the damage to each of the instant crimes is not a significant part of the result; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime are considered as a whole.